10 minutes ago, Dougal said:

 No? I thought you once described one using the west side of the river.

 

No. There are no more intact railroad rights of way that travel south from the lakefront along either side of the Cuyahoga River. Not since the 1980s.

18 hours ago, Dougal said:

Is the alternate route to the Lakefront Amtrak station still a possibility?

I wouldn't see the point of connecting to the Amtrak location anyway.   We only get 2 trains in the wee morning hours at the lakefront station.  For a recreational train line, a station at Tower City, or the old B&O station makes the most sense.   

The best approach would be a CVSR station with a short walk to an RTA station. 

Maybe one near the current Post Office/future soccer stadium that is part of a downtown loop!

Slides from today's NOACA meeting: https://www.noaca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/32293/638733157832302584

 

Very little mention of the major stumbling block of dealing with CSX.

49 minutes ago, acd said:

Slides from today's NOACA meeting: https://www.noaca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/32293/638733157832302584

 

Very little mention of the major stumbling block of dealing with CSX.

 

But it was discussed....

 

Thanks for the link Ken. Obviously getting buyin from CSX could make or break it. At this point l'm just happy to see the momentum. It sounds more promising than ever. 

54 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Yes, but it requires a 2 percent grade which CVSR said it doesn't like. If CVSR/CVNRA bought used self-propelled diesel rail cars, like the ones Ottawa's O-train is/was selling, they could tackle a 2 percent grade easily.

 

Meanwhile Bedrock has no idea how to return foot traffic and tenants back to Tower City, a former railroad station. A thought seems to be escaping them...

 

 

 

What is CVSR's desired maximum grade? 

 

Stupid question, is it feasible to underpass the Norfolk Southern tracks and have the CVSR tracks run parallel to the GCRTA tracks? There looks to be about 40' of elevation difference between the two tracks, and it looks like there may be space for additional rail right of way under the road bridges. 

 

edit: something like this:

 

My variation of that, which I titled "CVSR link to Tower City if money was no object" was this version which keeps the gradient at 1 percent and curvatures to allow trains to travel at about 60 mph until they hit the Cuyahoga River liftbridge which would probably have a 50 mph speed restriction. Red is CVSR only track and blue is CSX track....

But this would be a cheaper way of getting CVSR, Amtrak, GCRTA and even Greyhound into a shared multimodal station facility near Downtown Cleveland and at much lower cost than Tower City.

 

 

And an older rendering of the same basic concept....

 

Would those tracks be the CVSR route, should it ever come to being?  

 

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Would those tracks be the CVSR route, should it ever come to being?  

 

Yes, that is where they would like to run it, and previously ran a demonstration train; however, if it is rebuilt as the new Canal Rd without a rail provision, it will get much more difficult. 

35 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Yes, that is where they would like to run it, and previously ran a demonstration train; however, if it is rebuilt as the new Canal Rd without a rail provision, it will get much more difficult. 

C'mon Cleveland.  Don't F this up.  It would be an amazing asset to link Tower City to the park and Downtown Akron. 

Anyone care to weigh in on whether you think those old buildings to the right of the tracks will/can be repurposed? 

7 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Would those tracks be the CVSR route, should it ever come to being?  

 

 

Yes, they would be.

13 hours ago, surfohio said:

Anyone care to weigh in on whether you think those old buildings to the right of the tracks will/can be repurposed? 

Wouldn't the power plant there would make a great terminus station for the CVSR?  While kinda forlorn right now it looks like it will be in the middle of future planned development below and all directions.  Maybe we can include an electric street car museum - can Trolleyville USA be brought back to life?

On 3/9/2025 at 8:18 AM, Willo said:

Wouldn't the power plant there would make a great terminus station for the CVSR?  While kinda forlorn right now it looks like it will be in the middle of future planned development below and all directions.  Maybe we can include an electric street car museum - can Trolleyville USA be brought back to life?

No, that would not be a good location for the CVSR terminus - it’s much too far from existing transit stations. The primary purpose of extending downtown is to get a better connection to public transit.  That would be a LONG walk plus a big hill to get to any connections. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

No, that would not be a good location for the CVSR terminus - it’s much too far from existing transit stations. The primary purpose of extending downtown is to get a better connection to public transit.  That would be a LONG walk plus a big hill to get to any connections. 

Wouldn’t say No out the gate until we know whether extending the tourist train into Tower City is feasible. Given that unknown and at least until we see the study underway and hear Bedrock’s feedback and impact on their plans, we should be noodling what is the next best possible option to get the tourist train as close to the attractions as possible. Maybe the power plant - which sits smack dab in the middle of a multi-billion development - and across from two major league sports stadiums and a potential soccer venue is that next best option - or maybe it won’t be. But shouldn’t be a fast No. As far as the hill and a long walk I am sure the developments will rise up and connect to Ontario to welcome people to attractions in both directions. 

I personally don't see the allure of CVSR. Now I love the idea of having trains connect different cities and regions but CVSR is SLOW as it is intended to be a sight seeing train. I wouldn't ride it if it stays as slow as it currently goes. Maybe it speeds up in different sections but from video I've seen it crawls and with the older cars they have they may not be capable of speeding up. 

13 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I personally don't see the allure of CVSR. Now I love the idea of having trains connect different cities and regions but CVSR is SLOW as it is intended to be a sight seeing train. I wouldn't ride it if it stays as slow as it currently goes. Maybe it speeds up in different sections but from video I've seen it crawls and with the older cars they have they may not be capable of speeding up. 

Your point is fair, it's not intended as a transit option. The reason for bringing it into Tower City, or at least downtown proper, is more tourism and access related. This is a really cool feature that no other big city will have. How many other cities will have a scenic train running through a national park? Only Akron, the other end of the same train. It's very unique and interesting that despite being so close together Cleveland and Akron have enough high quality parkland between them for it to be recognized as a national park. The people trying to bring the train into downtown Cleveland are basically saying, "let's leverage this asset to its full potential!"

15 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I personally don't see the allure of CVSR. Now I love the idea of having trains connect different cities and regions but CVSR is SLOW as it is intended to be a sight seeing train. I wouldn't ride it if it stays as slow as it currently goes. Maybe it speeds up in different sections but from video I've seen it crawls and with the older cars they have they may not be capable of speeding up. 

You are correct.  It is basically just a sight seeing train or an occasional adventure through some scenic landscapes.  That is why I don't see the need to have it stop in Tower City itself, especially if it going to cost a fortune to make that happen.  I would like  to see it extended into downtown Cleveland, but a nicely appointed stop near Riverview as proposed is not a problem for me.

16 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

You are correct.  It is basically just a sight seeing train or an occasional adventure through some scenic landscapes.  That is why I don't see the need to have it stop in Tower City itself, especially if it going to cost a fortune to make that happen.  I would like  to see it extended into downtown Cleveland, but a nicely appointed stop near Riverview as proposed is not a problem for me.

I don't like their proposed location, it's much too far from downtown to be walkable. It's barely walkable from the new riverfront district they are proposing. I could be fine with a compromise location like the old thermal plant, but the proposed location screams afterthought, and will feel isolated even if the Riverview development is completed. 

 

5 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Your point is fair, it's not intended as a transit option. The reason for bringing it into Tower City, or at least downtown proper, is more tourism and access related. This is a really cool feature that no other big city will have. How many other cities will have a scenic train running through a national park? Only Akron, the other end of the same train. It's very unique and interesting that despite being so close together Cleveland and Akron have enough high quality parkland between them for it to be recognized as a national park. The people trying to bring the train into downtown Cleveland are basically saying, "let's leverage this asset to its full potential!"

Your right.  I think it would be a huge draw for tourists and used more by people from out of town visiting Cleveland (I believe the biggest cliental right now are locals) if you can board it downtown.

 

I have a buddy coming into town next week for the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament and he is staying downtown.  Games are Friday and Sunday so he is looking for something to do on Saturday.  He has done the Rock Hall and Art Museum multiple times, so I think he would jump at a chance to ride the train.  He is a big hiker and could possibly get off in the park or maybe just ride it all the way to Akron.  Less likely it he has to find his way out to Rockside Road to do so.

4 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

Your right.  I think it would be a huge draw for tourists and used more by people from out of town visiting Cleveland (I believe the biggest cliental right now are locals) if you can board it downtown.

 

I have a buddy coming into town next week for the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament and he is staying downtown.  Games are Friday and Sunday so he is looking for something to do on Saturday.  He has done the Rock Hall and Art Museum multiple times, so I think he would jump at a chance to ride the train.  He is a big hiker and could possibly get off in the park or maybe just ride it all the way to Akron.  Less likely it he has to find his way out to Rockside Road to do so.

I know I would jump at the chance to take a quick bike ride downtown, and board a train with it to the park.  Spend the day riding in the park, or maybe downtown Akron, and return in the late afternoon.   A perfect compliment to our region. 

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

I personally don't see the allure of CVSR. Now I love the idea of having trains connect different cities and regions but CVSR is SLOW as it is intended to be a sight seeing train. I wouldn't ride it if it stays as slow as it currently goes. Maybe it speeds up in different sections but from video I've seen it crawls and with the older cars they have they may not be capable of speeding up. 

This will not be a great option for CLE to Akron. But that isn’t the point - this extension is about getting more people into the National Park. Especially people without vehicles who have no other way of getting there. But even beyond that, every person who rides the train into the park is one less car driving into the park. It reduces the need for expensive, otherwise useless parking lots. Imagine taking the train from downtown into the park, then kayaking or biking back. If you wanted to do either today, you’d have to figure out how to get your bike/kayak back to your car. It enables more interesting one way hikes instead forcing round trip hikes. It will be a tremendous asset to both downtown and the park. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Your point is fair, it's not intended as a transit option. The reason for bringing it into Tower City, or at least downtown proper, is more tourism and access related. This is a really cool feature that no other big city will have. How many other cities will have a scenic train running through a national park? Only Akron, the other end of the same train. It's very unique and interesting that despite being so close together Cleveland and Akron have enough high quality parkland between them for it to be recognized as a national park. The people trying to bring the train into downtown Cleveland are basically saying, "let's leverage this asset to its full potential!"

Well said. 

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

You are correct.  It is basically just a sight seeing train or an occasional adventure through some scenic landscapes.  That is why I don't see the need to have it stop in Tower City itself, especially if it going to cost a fortune to make that happen.  I would like  to see it extended into downtown Cleveland, but a nicely appointed stop near Riverview as proposed is not a problem for me.

If people can’t get to the train from public transit, it drastically reduces the usefulness. 

1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

I know I would jump at the chance to take a quick bike ride downtown, and board a train with it to the park.  Spend the day riding in the park, or maybe downtown Akron, and return in the late afternoon.   A perfect compliment to our region. 

Love it. Imagine taking the train to Boston Mills or Blossom! A Ski train in Cleveland sounds great to me. 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Your point is fair, it's not intended as a transit option. The reason for bringing it into Tower City, or at least downtown proper, is more tourism and access related. This is a really cool feature that no other big city will have. How many other cities will have a scenic train running through a national park? Only Akron, the other end of the same train. It's very unique and interesting that despite being so close together Cleveland and Akron have enough high quality parkland between them for it to be recognized as a national park. The people trying to bring the train into downtown Cleveland are basically saying, "let's leverage this asset to its full potential!"

CVSR would get a hugeeeee ridership boost. I think people would be surprised at the tourism numbers Cleveland gets. I've met people from all across the country, and world, who are visiting Cleveland for the Rock Hall, Cedar Point, CVNP, plays, orchestra, and all of the other options. During the summer there are always a lot of visiting fans in town for baseball. Many of them, especially fans of the East Coast teams, without a car. 

 

To me the even bigger thing with getting CVSR into Tower City is the potential future projects it opens up. Future track improvements could be made to run Cleveland/Akron/Canton commuter rail. Potentially running from Hopkins with a stop or 2 in CVNP, Akron, Akron-Canton Airport, the Pro Football HOF, Downtown Canton, and a few other key points along the way. 

 

Having the faster alternative to CVSR to get you into CVNP would be a massive boost to attracting people to live in Downtown Akron or Cleveland and along the existing rapid transit corridors. Live Downtown, take the train to hike, ski, snowboard, avoid Blossom traffic, etc. How many other metro areas in the US have that option? I know I would use it a minimum of 12-15 times a year. 

 

If the 3C+D line ever happens, Cleveland would already be the most attractive stop due to having a more extensive public transit network than anywhere else in the state. But being able to get to CVNP and beyond would widen that gap even more. So not only would it likely be a nice bump to out of state/country tourism, but also attract some people from other regions of Ohio who may have never considered CVSR or a weekend stay in Cleveland before. Now they can stay Downtown for quick weekend trip, catch a Guardians game or whatever else they'd like, and ride the train to a national park. 

 

Tower City could become more of a regional attraction again with new direct rail connections to 700k and 400k metro areas bringing people up for sports, events, and day trips. 

Edited March 12Mar 12 by PlanCleveland
Typos

3 hours ago, Ethan said:

Your point is fair, it's not intended as a transit option. The reason for bringing it into Tower City, or at least downtown proper, is more tourism and access related. This is a really cool feature that no other big city will have. How many other cities will have a scenic train running through a national park? Only Akron, the other end of the same train. It's very unique and interesting that despite being so close together Cleveland and Akron have enough high quality parkland between them for it to be recognized as a national park. The people trying to bring the train into downtown Cleveland are basically saying, "let's leverage this asset to its full potential!"

So my question is this. Along the route that this would hypothetically take from Cleveland to Akron, is there enough scenic parkland for it to be worth riding a train that travels 25 MPH? With how long that would take it would have to constantly have breathtaking, unique views to get people to ditch their car. This is especially true when you factor in Akron being 32 minutes from Downtown Cleveland, if you ride this train at the current speed you're riding on it for at least an hour. 

 

Even from Akron to Cleveland how many people will travel from Akron, drive to the CVSR and then ride it to Cleveland instead of just driving straight here? It HAS to offer uniqueness for the entirety of the trip especially when travel times will at the very least double.

 

This is similar to the disadvantage Amtrak has vs. flying, while I would love to take Amtrak (especially with this whole FAA thing) it is much slower than flying and slower than driving so people with take those other two modes instead. 

 

So unless there is an undeniable advantage I don't see this lessening car travel to the parks and vice versa.

 

Sorry to be a glass half empty guy. 

3 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

So my question is this. Along the route that this would hypothetically take from Cleveland to Akron, is there enough scenic parkland for it to be worth riding a train that travels 25 MPH? With how long that would take it would have to constantly have breathtaking, unique views to get people to ditch their car. This is especially true when you factor in Akron being 32 minutes from Downtown Cleveland, if you ride this train at the current speed you're riding on it for at least an hour. 

 

Even from Akron to Cleveland how many people will travel from Akron, drive to the CVSR and then ride it to Cleveland instead of just driving straight here? It HAS to offer uniqueness for the entirety of the trip especially when travel times will at the very least double.

 

This is similar to the disadvantage Amtrak has vs. flying, while I would love to take Amtrak (especially with this whole FAA thing) it is much slower than flying and slower than driving so people with take those other two modes instead. 

 

So unless there is an undeniable advantage I don't see this lessening car travel to the parks and vice versa.

 

Sorry to be a glass half empty guy. 

I really don't get your post.  The point is that the attraction is that it is a train ride which are far and few between in the US, especially when compared to the automobile.  As people have noted it is the train ride itself, with the added bonus of scenic views and a path to a National Park, that is what draws people.  You keep trying to portray it as a form of fast and convenient transportation and that is clearly not its allure or purpose. 

3 minutes ago, MyPhoneDead said:

So my question is this. Along the route that this would hypothetically take from Cleveland to Akron, is there enough scenic parkland for it to be worth riding a train that travels 25 MPH? With how long that would take it would have to constantly have breathtaking, unique views to get people to ditch their car. This is especially true when you factor in Akron being 32 minutes from Downtown Cleveland, if you ride this train at the current speed you're riding on it for at least an hour. 

 

Even from Akron to Cleveland how many people will travel from Akron, drive to the CVSR and then ride it to Cleveland instead of just driving straight here? It HAS to offer uniqueness for the entirety of the trip especially when travel times will at the very least double.

 

This is similar to the disadvantage Amtrak has vs. flying, while I would love to take Amtrak (especially with this whole FAA thing) it is much slower than flying and slower than driving so people with take those other two modes instead. 

 

So unless there is an undeniable advantage I don't see this lessening car travel to the parks and vice versa.

 

Sorry to be a glass half empty guy. 

 

Much of this has already been addressed by others, but CVSR from Cleveland has a few things going for it:

• It's accessible to people without cars, and cheaper than getting two rideshare rides
• It's accessible to tourists staying downtown without cars (or those with cars seeking something unique and interesting)
• You can bring bikes and kayaks on board, allowing people to ride the train out of cleveland, and bike, kayak, or hike back (not all cars can carry a kayak or bike)
• It often offers on-board programming, like beer tastings, murder mysteries, Polar Express, family brunch that offer value beyond the views from the train

Honestly Polar Express would probably make the whole thing worth the effort.  I went on it last season for the first time, and it's two 100% full trains per evening for a month and a half.  Every time I've ridden CVSR, it's been obvious that it's not the fastest means of travel (it's honestly not even the most scenic means, even in the park), yet I continue to use it.

2 minutes ago, acd said:

Honestly Polar Express would probably make the whole thing worth the effort.  I went on it last season for the first time, and it's two 100% full trains per evening for a month and a half.  Every time I've ridden CVSR, it's been obvious that it's not the fastest means of travel (it's honestly not even the most scenic means, even in the park), yet I continue to use it.

Agreed, between the Christmas Story House Museum, and a ride on the Polar Express, that's a fine December Holiday themed weekend trip! 

50 minutes ago, Htsguy said:

I really don't get your post.  The point is that the attraction is that it is a train ride which are far and few between in the US, especially when compared to the automobile.  As people have noted it is the train ride itself, with the added bonus of scenic views and a path to a National Park, that is what draws people.  You keep trying to portray it as a form of fast and convenient transportation and that is clearly not its allure or purpose. 

If people want to go to the park they will drive vs. ride this because it's too slow to justify riding this instead. That's it that's all. When it comes to transportation in this country people will always choose the more convenient option. 

 

I also don't feel that there are enough people without a car that will use this to justify the investment. 

Edited March 12Mar 12 by MyPhoneDead

it currently gets 200,000 riders per year. 

1 hour ago, MyPhoneDead said:

If people want to go to the park they will drive vs. ride this because it's too slow to justify riding this instead. That's it that's all. When it comes to transportation in this country people will always choose the more convenient option. 

 

I also don't feel that there are enough people without a car that will use this to justify the investment. 

Something like 35% of Clevelanders don’t have cars. Many people will benefit from this option!

 

And regarding speed - higher speed generally increases ridership, but even slow services can be useful when they go somewhere people want to go. 

47 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

it currently gets 200,000 riders per year. 

And CVSR has estimated that would grow to over 300k with the downtown extension. 

8 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Something like 35% of Clevelanders don’t have cars.

 

What percentage of households don't have cars?    

6 hours ago, Htsguy said:

Your right.  I think it would be a huge draw for tourists and used more by people from out of town visiting Cleveland (I believe the biggest cliental right now are locals) if you can board it downtown. 

 

I would imagine the train drawing many thousands of visitors to Tower City during the holidays. It would be a big deal for bringing families, and potential shoppers back to the city center.  

2 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

If people want to go to the park they will drive vs. ride this because it's too slow to justify riding this instead. That's it that's all. When it comes to transportation in this country people will always choose the more convenient option. 

Normally, I would agree with this statement. But as others have pointed out, this is not primarily a method of transportation, but part of the experience of enjoying the park. I know when I'm driving, I don't really get to take in everything around me when I'm focused on the traffic in front of me.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

What percentage of households don't have cars?    

 

linked article: https://www.cleveland.com/data/2023/01/cleveland-and-east-cleveland-top-ohio-cities-with-highest-percent-of-households-without-access-to-a-car-census-estimates.html?outputType=amp

Nearly  one in four households (city of cleveland, 22.4%) is a LOT of people having no access to a car. 
 

But even if a household has just one car, getting around becomes a pain. Enabling more households to go car-light is a much more realistic goal than making it possible to electively go car-free. 

It's a train. My unscientific opinion is everyone loves to ride the train. So it's a sort of "lf you build it people will ride it." It's not more complicated than that. Everything else is just details. 

 

Figure it out.

The naysayers keep saying "the 25 mph train" which of course it is for breakfast with santa and murder mystery dinners.

 

Is there any reason why a commuter train couldn't go 55 during weekdays/business hours? 

Did ‘Steam in the Valley’ today. A great few hours.

This is a riot. Miles in Transit was supposed to be on a flight from Boston to Cleveland, but it got delayed and then canceled. So he took a southwest flight to Baltimore, took the light rail downtown, took a greyhound bus from Baltimore to Pittsburgh to Akron, then walked over and took the Cuyahoga Valley scenic Railroad up to Rockside Road as a way to get to Cleveland. A good way of demonstrating how little resilience our current transportation systems have. But it became a nice review of the CVSR. .

The last time I was in Cleveland, I actually took the bus from downtown to Independence just to go to that McDonald's. 😄

A very entertaining and fun video. CVSR has really added some cool onboard services!

I really need to adopt his positivity and resilience when travel plans go awry.

2 hours ago, Jax said:

I really need to adopt his positivity and resilience when travel plans go awry.

And he ended up cash-positive by the end of the trip!

CVSR pursues Downtown Cleveland link with CSX

By Ken Prendergast / June 8, 2025

On March 16, family, friends and colleagues of Thomas V. Chema received horrible news. The 78-year-old leader of civic causes and institutions died suddenly at his home in Downtown Cleveland. Chema was in the midst of excitedly pursuing his latest civic endeavor — the extension of Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad trains into downtown.

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2025/06/08/cvsr-pursues-downtown-cleveland-link-with-csx/

So something that seemed to be a far gone conclusion might have some real possibility of happening left in it?
I know I shouldnt get myself too excited so ill avoid that, but the end of your article is extremely concerning.
Goes to show just how beholden to lobbyists and moneyed interest our stage legislature is. I appreciate the work All Aboard Ohio is doing.

Getting people active and cognizant of local politics would have a greater impact than screaming into the void down in DC.

An extension of the CVSR to a new downtown Cleveland station that is walkable from public square is such a no brainer that it's unfathomable how many obstacles keep getting put in the way. I'm glad to hear there's still some hope left, but I'm frustrated at how hard it's seeming to be to do something so self-evidently good for the city. This would be such a cool, unique tourist attraction, hopefully the City leaders fight hard for it.

Where is Shontel Brown in all of this?

2 hours ago, Cleburger said:

Where is Shontel Brown in all of this?

She has been a supporter of rail, but I don't know that the extension of CVSR has gotten much attention from anyone.

49 minutes ago, Foraker said:

She has been a supporter of rail, but I don't know that the extension of CVSR has gotten much attention from anyone.

The CVSR extension is a top priority for NOACA, the county, and the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. It has also been supported by the city and other local politicians. The idea that it hasn’t got much attention is flat out wrong. The primary issue, as Ken wrote, is CSX. It is also not helpful that Bedrock still doesn’t get how beneficial it would be for them. The real thing this is demonstrating is that politicians don’t just have a magic wand they can wave. The railroads have extremely strong property rights, so we HAVE to figure out how to get CSX onboard. A pressure campaign on CSX would be useful. (The Bedrock proposed location also demonstrates that they REALLY don’t get it - if it isn’t walkable, the extension loses the vast majority of its utility.)